I did, and I suppose that if all classes are truly overstocked, then a reduction in machines is great. In practice, however, it seems to me that computers are often unevenly installed, so one class consistently has too many, while another has too few. I guess this all hinges on the newly-gained "productivity" of the IT department.
I don't know what you mean by OS X's dual-head support being "non-ideal." It works just as well as Windows for me - about the only thing I haven't figured out how to do is change the second monitor's desktop with AppleScript, which is somewhat low on the priority list anyway:). Do you have specific complaints? Maybe I can help.
I'm using an iMac with a 17" CRT I had lying around. The original iMacs had a bad rep because spanning was crippled in software, but that hasn't been true for a while.
I apologize; I should have been more careful with my wording. I'm fairly clear on what the law is now, and I was speaking hypothetically about whether the current standard is fair.
I agree with most of what you're saying here and elsewhere on this story, but I can see problems with rejecting the idea of mechanical copyright entirely - it makes the line between a protected work and an unprotectable work fuzzier.
You say that "setting up a camera and pointing it at someone" shouldn't be protected, but is there a limit to this? Does it matter what the subject is? The environment? Does an EFP qualify for copyright?*
Let's think about still photographers for a minute. I think it's pretty clear that certain kinds of photographs should be protected, but should somebody who points a SLR camera at somebody and takes a picture not qualify for copyright? I would argue that the photos that appear in a newspaper and those that appear in a TV broadcast should be treated equivalently for purposes of copyright protection.
Honestly, I don't know how I feel about these questions. I think there are valid points to be made either way.
I agree that a broadcasting right is patently unfair, however - even if the broadcaster adds value by adding CGs, as C-SPAN does.
(* Non-TV Slashdotters: An EFP is a recording or broadcast created by switching between two or more cameras in real-time.)
Because no other organization has demonstrated both the financial means to run leased lines, and the willingness to carry the programming gavel-to-gavel. I had difficulty locating the particulars of gaining access, though this site has some information about how it works in the Senate.
Unfortunately, TV is very expensive to broadcast - it always has been, and likely always will be. I don't know what the best solution would be, but for the moment, C-SPAN is clearly the most effective way for the general public to gain access.
It depends on whose doing the recording. If a non-governmental entity does the recording, they own the copyright to that particular taping of the event. This means you could theoretically have CNN, Fox News, and C-SPAN at a Congressional hearing, and each would own the copyright to their footage and would not have access to the other tapes without permission.
In C-SPAN's case, what they broadcast can be divided loosely into two categories: footage shot by the government and footage shot by them. The House and Senate floor coverage is shot by crews and equipment owned by the Congress; C-SPAN merely takes a feed and retransmits it with their graphics. Thus, the floor sessions are public domain.
For other C-SPAN programs, the network sends its own equipment and crews to the hearing or event. Therefore, they own the copyright.
I think this is a good step in the right direction, but I'm concerned that (1) C-SPAN will use this as leverage to get their cameras into the House and Senate so they can restrict these programs and (2) that not using a standardized Creative Commons license adds to the paperwork that potential users will have to deal with.
Absolutely. I was just discussing this with someone today - if the "readings" in Congress were mandatory and could not be bypassed by consent, we'd have a much better legal system for a variety of reasons - Congressional representatives couldn't claim ignorance, there would be an incentive to keep bills shorter, and an unexpected change would be noticed more readily.
Gimp's usability is awful. Horribly so. Particularly on the Mac.
The mnemonics for the keyboard shortcuts make no sense.
Layer styles are non-existent.
Palettes get lost among the images because there's no "always-on-top" setting.
The right mouse button pops up a menu bar instead of a reasonable context menu.
Gimp insists on using its own private clipboard unless you beg it not to.
It runs in X11, meaning the Command key is ignored, menus appear in the wrong place, and the file dialog boxes look nothing like Aqua dialogs.
It's worth putting up with the hassle of activation to get Photoshop because there's no reasonable alternative. The Gimp doesn't even come close. I wish it did, but I don't expect to catch up for years, at least.
I'm not necessarily pushing MacBooks. I only brought it up because the submitter was complaining about setup and boot time, and I wanted to illustrate that the technology we have today is up to the task. Apple offers an integrated solution, and I think Dell does too.
If the submitter wants to use the PCs in multiple rooms, how is a separate computer and monitor going to help? As I said, it does take more time to set up - at least twice as much. Remember, if you're using a "desktop" PC rather than a laptop, you also have to set up a keyboard and mouse, which will take up just as much space as a laptop would.
The laptop carts that poster passed on are integrated systems with built-in chargers. You plug one cord into the wall and the cart will charge up to 32 laptops simultaneously. In the classroom, it'll also power a wireless access point and a printer.
How is OLPC going to help the poster do what s/he wants? It stands for One Laptop Per Child, doesn't it?
Laptops are a challenge, but they're exactly what the poster needs for that situation: instant deployment and pickup for a large number of students.
We would like to bust out of the computer lab model?
What's wrong with the computer lab model? It's cheaper because desktops are almost always cheaper than comparably-equipped notebooks. Besides, childhood obesity in the U.S. is at staggering levels - a short walk to a lab won't hurt.
but don't want a trolley of laptops wheeled from class to class.
What's wrong with a trolley of laptops? It's portable, easy to set up, and inexpensive when you factor in educational discounts.
I've drooled over wi-fi PDAs but just can't afford a set for class (and the batteries drain too fast).
Wi-Fi PDAs don't run Firefox and they don't run Office/OpenOffice.org/Google Docs.
In a classroom, space is at a premium and teachers won't use a technology that takes too long to set up.
MacBook setup: 1. Hand out notebook. 2. Open screen.
Most of the time the kids are just researching (Google), or typing (Google Docs), the rest of the time they can go to a lab.
So you have a lab, but you don't want to use it? I'm confused.
I would love to have a desk-based solution. Can you run a wi-fi mini-pc (sitting under the desk) from a 12-volt rechargeable battery (also sitting under the desk) with a 7" LCD (sitting on the desk), that boots from flash card into FireFox?
How do you propose to get the signal from the computer to the monitor and A/C to the battery? More importantly, why not a laptop? It's a computer with a built-in battery and screen. It sits on the desk, but doesn't take up much space at all.
No setup time!
I can't see how setting up two pieces of equipment is faster than setting up one piece of equipment.
Alternatively can anyone say why this is silly?
Okay, here's why it's silly. Unless there's something you're not telling us, you've just proposed to throw away the two best solutions to your problem (a lab and a laptop cart) for no reason other than the geek factor. I'm sorry, but I just can't see what your aim is.
Re:Does it matter?
on
SCO Vs. Groklaw
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
The passage you quoted (either Mark 10:17-18 or Luke 18:18-19) leaves out important context: Jesus is responding to the rich man who asked him what he "must do to inherit eternal life." Most Biblical scholars agree that the question was rhetorical in nature - Jesus was probing to understand the man's faith, not denying his divinity.
You are in NO WAY being victimized. You never had any rights to those artistic works, so they can't really be violated.
I used to have fair use rights. Those mysteriously disappeared around the same time that DRM entered the scene. I also used to have the right to use creative works 28 years after they were published, but that was taken away too. Finally, the Constitution is typically seen as a document that denies the government power, not one that grants rights to citizens. Therefore, if there's a provision that establishes copyright, it's logical to believe that I had the right to works in the public domain before that was temporarily curtailed for the benefit of society.
I agree in principle that artistic work should eventually enter the public domain
Is your definition of "eventually" the same one the Supremes use? Because moving the goalposts and "limited times" are exact opposites in my mind.
but 10 years is about the time when a first "greatest hits" album is due.
Cool, so they can release it and it will be protected the exact same way such a work would be protected now: you can't copy from the compilation, but you have just as much right to the original releases as they do. Most records go platinum in under 10 years, if ever. Keeping something locked up 90 years beyond that is counter-productive to society; and remember, the whole point of copyright is to benefit society, not the copyright holders.
I'm fine with the death of anybody getting non-transferable royalties as an entry-to-public-domain date.
Law does not necessarily equate to ethics. In my mind, creative works locked up for a century (subject to extension if the price is right) behind copyright law is ridiculous, and in fact, makes the recording industry the thieves, and the public the victims. This is especially the case in an era where a single song is owned by dozens of companies - one holding the rights to the lyrics, another for the score, another for mechanical rights, another for public performance rights, and more. Will we ever know for sure that a work has entered public domain?
Copyright should only last 10 years, if that. I don't feel sorry at all for companies that claim people are stealing music from artists who have long been dead and buried.
I like Macs too, but to play devil's advocate, some say that's because the performance was so horrible to begin with, that subsequent versions could only get better.
How long does it take to dial a 50-digit installation key (twice!), then read it off again to the operator? In fact, the last time I activated, the IVR would not allow me to skip ahead - I had to dial five digits, then listen to the cheerful encouragement before dialing the next set.
Product activation was the primary reason I swore never to give Microsoft money again. Apple doesn't even require a serial number for OS X.
The BSA very strongly parallels the RIAA, which you may have heard of. They're a trade group financed by the companies they represent. (Interestingly, their methods of "proving" copyright infringement are also eerily similar.)
I dont believe that 'consideration' is anything more then marketing spin coming from those companies.
That could be, but I'm hoping it's something more than that.
From what I can tell, there's three camps of consumers when it comes to DRM:
The camp that can't stand it, won't buy it, and goes without the content.
The camp that doesn't like it all that much, but buys it anyway.
The camp that won't pay no matter what you do, and pirates the content instead.
I know the recording industry is losing out on sales thanks to DRM because they're losing me. I just discovered an amazing album on iTunes, but I'm not going to buy it because of the DRM. If FairPlay wasn't there, I would have just spent $9.90 to download an out-of-print album. I have heard other Slashdotters express similar sentiments.
Lifting DRM seems like a win-win-win-win scenario to me. The hold-outs like me will suddenly start buying music, the existing paying customers will be happier that they can move their music back and forth, and some of the pirates might start paying now that the convenience is there. I don't think they'll lose anybody to the lack of DRM, because piracy is ubiquitous - if you want a song for free, it's out there. The recording industry makes more money because at least as many people are buying, if not more. About the only company that loses in this scenario is Apple. The recording industry could give them an ultimatum - no DRM or no music - and Apple would lose the lock-in that managed to defeat the recording industry last time they renegotiated the contract.
Lately, the prevailing theory for why DRM is present is not that it stops piracy, but that it locks content to one format so consumers have to buy it again and again for different platforms. That's a nice theory, but I question whether it truly works that way. When was the last time you remember somebody doing that? For example, I've never seen anybody buy a DVD of a movie they already have on VHS. (Admittedly, I could be living a sheltered life.)
Sorry, but I'm afraid you're thinking of Chuck Norris.
Sorry about that. I may be a grammar Nazi, but at least I'm an unbiased one.;)
Slow Down Cowboy! Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment. (That is, unless you're Chuck Norris.)
Sure 99% of domains would be dropped. However, a huge chunk of that number would be legitimate domains used by ordinary people. I own a domain which I use to host a blog, and small tools designed for public use. I make essentially zero revenue connected with it - a total gross of about $10 over four years. If the price of a domain was raised to $50, I would be priced out of the market, as would many other legitimate owners and even some small businesses. The web would become the territory of the wealthy - exactly what the media conglomerates want.
Depends on which mode of undelete you used. There were three: the typical undelete functionality, which you described; delete tracker, which actively avoided writing to the deleted FAT entry until there were no other options; and delete sentry, which moved the files to a hidden directory, much like the Recycle Bin does today.
Slashdot Mirror
I did, and I suppose that if all classes are truly overstocked, then a reduction in machines is great. In practice, however, it seems to me that computers are often unevenly installed, so one class consistently has too many, while another has too few. I guess this all hinges on the newly-gained "productivity" of the IT department.
I don't know what you mean by OS X's dual-head support being "non-ideal." It works just as well as Windows for me - about the only thing I haven't figured out how to do is change the second monitor's desktop with AppleScript, which is somewhat low on the priority list anyway :). Do you have specific complaints? Maybe I can help.
I'm using an iMac with a 17" CRT I had lying around. The original iMacs had a bad rep because spanning was crippled in software, but that hasn't been true for a while.
I apologize; I should have been more careful with my wording. I'm fairly clear on what the law is now, and I was speaking hypothetically about whether the current standard is fair.
I agree with most of what you're saying here and elsewhere on this story, but I can see problems with rejecting the idea of mechanical copyright entirely - it makes the line between a protected work and an unprotectable work fuzzier.
You say that "setting up a camera and pointing it at someone" shouldn't be protected, but is there a limit to this? Does it matter what the subject is? The environment? Does an EFP qualify for copyright?*
Let's think about still photographers for a minute. I think it's pretty clear that certain kinds of photographs should be protected, but should somebody who points a SLR camera at somebody and takes a picture not qualify for copyright? I would argue that the photos that appear in a newspaper and those that appear in a TV broadcast should be treated equivalently for purposes of copyright protection.
Honestly, I don't know how I feel about these questions. I think there are valid points to be made either way.
I agree that a broadcasting right is patently unfair, however - even if the broadcaster adds value by adding CGs, as C-SPAN does.
(* Non-TV Slashdotters: An EFP is a recording or broadcast created by switching between two or more cameras in real-time.)
Unfortunately, TV is very expensive to broadcast - it always has been, and likely always will be. I don't know what the best solution would be, but for the moment, C-SPAN is clearly the most effective way for the general public to gain access.
It depends on whose doing the recording. If a non-governmental entity does the recording, they own the copyright to that particular taping of the event. This means you could theoretically have CNN, Fox News, and C-SPAN at a Congressional hearing, and each would own the copyright to their footage and would not have access to the other tapes without permission.
In C-SPAN's case, what they broadcast can be divided loosely into two categories: footage shot by the government and footage shot by them. The House and Senate floor coverage is shot by crews and equipment owned by the Congress; C-SPAN merely takes a feed and retransmits it with their graphics. Thus, the floor sessions are public domain.
For other C-SPAN programs, the network sends its own equipment and crews to the hearing or event. Therefore, they own the copyright.
I think this is a good step in the right direction, but I'm concerned that (1) C-SPAN will use this as leverage to get their cameras into the House and Senate so they can restrict these programs and (2) that not using a standardized Creative Commons license adds to the paperwork that potential users will have to deal with.
Absolutely. I was just discussing this with someone today - if the "readings" in Congress were mandatory and could not be bypassed by consent, we'd have a much better legal system for a variety of reasons - Congressional representatives couldn't claim ignorance, there would be an incentive to keep bills shorter, and an unexpected change would be noticed more readily.
- The mnemonics for the keyboard shortcuts make no sense.
- Layer styles are non-existent.
- Palettes get lost among the images because there's no "always-on-top" setting.
- The right mouse button pops up a menu bar instead of a reasonable context menu.
- Gimp insists on using its own private clipboard unless you beg it not to.
- It runs in X11, meaning the Command key is ignored, menus appear in the wrong place, and the file dialog boxes look nothing like Aqua dialogs.
It's worth putting up with the hassle of activation to get Photoshop because there's no reasonable alternative. The Gimp doesn't even come close. I wish it did, but I don't expect to catch up for years, at least.I'm not necessarily pushing MacBooks. I only brought it up because the submitter was complaining about setup and boot time, and I wanted to illustrate that the technology we have today is up to the task. Apple offers an integrated solution, and I think Dell does too.
If the submitter wants to use the PCs in multiple rooms, how is a separate computer and monitor going to help? As I said, it does take more time to set up - at least twice as much. Remember, if you're using a "desktop" PC rather than a laptop, you also have to set up a keyboard and mouse, which will take up just as much space as a laptop would.
The laptop carts that poster passed on are integrated systems with built-in chargers. You plug one cord into the wall and the cart will charge up to 32 laptops simultaneously. In the classroom, it'll also power a wireless access point and a printer.
How is OLPC going to help the poster do what s/he wants? It stands for One Laptop Per Child, doesn't it?
Laptops are a challenge, but they're exactly what the poster needs for that situation: instant deployment and pickup for a large number of students.
There are countless times in the New Testament when Jesus asserts his divinity. See, for example, Matthew 26:63-65, Mark 14:60-62, Luke 22:67-70, John 4:25-26, John 8:58, John 10:30, and John 18:33-37. Also, remember that Jesus was given to the Romans by the Jewish authorities because he claimed to be God.
The passage you quoted (either Mark 10:17-18 or Luke 18:18-19) leaves out important context: Jesus is responding to the rich man who asked him what he "must do to inherit eternal life." Most Biblical scholars agree that the question was rhetorical in nature - Jesus was probing to understand the man's faith, not denying his divinity.
Law does not necessarily equate to ethics. In my mind, creative works locked up for a century (subject to extension if the price is right) behind copyright law is ridiculous, and in fact, makes the recording industry the thieves, and the public the victims. This is especially the case in an era where a single song is owned by dozens of companies - one holding the rights to the lyrics, another for the score, another for mechanical rights, another for public performance rights, and more. Will we ever know for sure that a work has entered public domain?
Copyright should only last 10 years, if that. I don't feel sorry at all for companies that claim people are stealing music from artists who have long been dead and buried.
I like Macs too, but to play devil's advocate, some say that's because the performance was so horrible to begin with, that subsequent versions could only get better.
Your 10-key skills must be amazing.
How long does it take to dial a 50-digit installation key (twice!), then read it off again to the operator? In fact, the last time I activated, the IVR would not allow me to skip ahead - I had to dial five digits, then listen to the cheerful encouragement before dialing the next set.
Product activation was the primary reason I swore never to give Microsoft money again. Apple doesn't even require a serial number for OS X.
The BSA very strongly parallels the RIAA, which you may have heard of. They're a trade group financed by the companies they represent. (Interestingly, their methods of "proving" copyright infringement are also eerily similar.)
So no, the BSA is not obligated to help you.
You just invented Blue Frog. They essentially shut down after the DDOS attacks got to be too expensive.
Hehe, I didn't realize there actually was a Bruce Schneier Facts page.
:)
There goes my evening.
From what I can tell, there's three camps of consumers when it comes to DRM:
- The camp that can't stand it, won't buy it, and goes without the content.
- The camp that doesn't like it all that much, but buys it anyway.
- The camp that won't pay no matter what you do, and pirates the content instead.
I know the recording industry is losing out on sales thanks to DRM because they're losing me. I just discovered an amazing album on iTunes, but I'm not going to buy it because of the DRM. If FairPlay wasn't there, I would have just spent $9.90 to download an out-of-print album. I have heard other Slashdotters express similar sentiments.Lifting DRM seems like a win-win-win-win scenario to me. The hold-outs like me will suddenly start buying music, the existing paying customers will be happier that they can move their music back and forth, and some of the pirates might start paying now that the convenience is there. I don't think they'll lose anybody to the lack of DRM, because piracy is ubiquitous - if you want a song for free, it's out there. The recording industry makes more money because at least as many people are buying, if not more. About the only company that loses in this scenario is Apple. The recording industry could give them an ultimatum - no DRM or no music - and Apple would lose the lock-in that managed to defeat the recording industry last time they renegotiated the contract.
Lately, the prevailing theory for why DRM is present is not that it stops piracy, but that it locks content to one format so consumers have to buy it again and again for different platforms. That's a nice theory, but I question whether it truly works that way. When was the last time you remember somebody doing that? For example, I've never seen anybody buy a DVD of a movie they already have on VHS. (Admittedly, I could be living a sheltered life.)
Sorry, but I'm afraid your thinking of Chuck Norris.
Bruce Schneier doesn't need physical strength. He simply does the AACS in his head.
Sure 99% of domains would be dropped. However, a huge chunk of that number would be legitimate domains used by ordinary people. I own a domain which I use to host a blog, and small tools designed for public use. I make essentially zero revenue connected with it - a total gross of about $10 over four years. If the price of a domain was raised to $50, I would be priced out of the market, as would many other legitimate owners and even some small businesses. The web would become the territory of the wealthy - exactly what the media conglomerates want.
Depends on which mode of undelete you used. There were three: the typical undelete functionality, which you described; delete tracker, which actively avoided writing to the deleted FAT entry until there were no other options; and delete sentry, which moved the files to a hidden directory, much like the Recycle Bin does today.